J 



BT 91 
.W36 
Copy 1 



[For convenience of reference, we have thought it well to append 
to our present number ^the Letter of Dr. Ward to Father 
Ryder, of the Birmingham Oratory, on the Infallibility of 
the Church, lately published in pamphlet form by Messrs. 
Burns fy Oates.~] 

A LETTER TO THE REV. FATHER RYDER 

ON HIS RECENT PAMPHLET. 
BY WILLIAM GEORGE WARD, D.Ph .' 

' * ! 



B U] 



(7. 



PREFACE. 






1 



SEVERAL persons may have read F. Ryder's 
pamphlet, and may be thus induced to look at this 
reply, who have not given any careful attention to that 
volume of mine which F. Ryder criticises. For the 
sake of such persons it may be useful to state metho- 
dically, though as briefly as I can, the points both of 
agreement and of difference between him and myself. 
Of course, since we both are Catholics, the former 
very greatly preponderate over the latter ; and with 
them I will begin. The four following propositions 
then are necessarily common ground between him and 
me. Taken together, they constitute what I may call 
the ecclesiastical foundation of Catholicism; and all 
Catholics agree with each other, while they differ from 
all non-Catholics, in adhering most firmly to this 
foundation. 

1. The Apostles left behind them a priceless treasure 
to the Church's infallible keeping; viz., that large 

a 



body of dogma, with which their own minds had been 
profoundly imbued through the teaching of Christ and 
the inspiration of the Holy Grhost. 

2. The Church— the Ecclesia Docens — to whose care 
this trust has been committed, and which is gifted 
therefore with infallibility in the office of fulfilling it, 
is the Catholic Episcopate, acting in union with, and 
in subordination to, S. Peter's See. 

3. Consequently, when the Supreme Pontiff and the 
Catholic bishops, acting in union, put forth a definition 
of faith — in other words, when they unite in declaring 
that a certain doctrine is part of the Catholic Faith, 
and that its contradictory is therefore heretical, — such 
definitions are infallible. 

4. Auy one who interiorly dissents from the defini- 
tions thus put forth, is (materially at least) a heretic, 
and is external to the Visible Church. 

Such, I say, is the foundation to which all Catholics 
firmly adhere ; and to which all who do adhere are 
Catholics. There are various matters however, con- 
nected with this foundation, on which no such unani- 
mity prevails among the children of the Church. These 
regard respectively (1) " the subject," and (2) " the 
object " of infallibility. Let me first then explain these 
expressions. When we are considering the former, we 
are considering who possesses infallibility ; when we are 
considering the latter, we are considering over what 
objects infallibility extends. And now let me consider 
these two questions separately. 

As regards the " subject " of infallibility, I am most 
happy to say that F. Ryder and myself are thoroughly 
in accordance. Certain theologians, who are called 
Gallican, maintain that the Pope is not infallible, even 
when he speaks ex cathedra ; that the voice of infalli- 
bility has not been raised, until his judgment has been 
confirmed by that of the Episcopate. But those theo- 
logians are by far the more numerous and the more 
approved, who consider that no such confirmation is 
needed ; and that whenever the Pope speaks as Uni- 



i 



J)Tri 
MX 



versal Teacher, his declarations are infallible. It is a 
most happy and promising circumstance of the present 
day, that Grallicanism is almost extinct ; and I find with 
great gratification that F. Ryder has no more sympathy 
with it than I have myself. 

My controversy with him then concerns exclusively 
the " object " of infallibility. Before mentioning, how- 
ever, the exact points on which our present discussion 
turns, I must speak of a minor matter which has some 
little bearing on those points. 

It is very far more common, at least with modern 
theologians, to use the phrase "the Deposit of Faith," 
or simply "the Deposit," as expressing that body of 
dogma which was actually taught by the Apostles to 
the Church.* I shall myself, in what follows, invariably 
take it in this sense. F. Ryder however uses the 
phrase to express, not those doctrines alone which the 
Apostles actually taught, but those also which follow 
from the former by strictly necessary consequence. He 
considers, accordingly, unless I misunderstand him, 
that the Church may define as of faith — in such sense 
therefore as to pronounce the contradictory tenet 
heretical — a doctrine which the Apostles did not actu- 
ally teach, but which follows by strict logical conse- 
quence from what they did teach. He has undoubtedly 
much support for this view in earlier theologians ; and 
though I do not myself concur in it, I know of no 
reason for thinking the question otherwise than open. 
I said a few words on it last October (p. 462). 

This being understood, the matter directly at issue 
between him and myself may be thus explained, with 
sufficient accuracy for practical purposes. He considers 
the Church to be infallible, only so far as she testifies to 
the Deposit, in that wider sense in which he uses this 

* I may be allowed here to refer my readers to a passage in the 
Dublin Keview of last October, pp. 468-9, where I have expressed, as 
well as I could, what seem to me the various ways in which the 
Apostles communicated doctrine to. the Church. 

a 2 



4 

latter term. In other words, he considers that she puts 
forth no infallible decisions, excepting (1) her defini- 
tions of- faith, and (2) a certain other class which I 
shall presently mention. For my part I maintain 
against him, as certain and undeniable, that the Church 
distinctly claims for herself a far wider infallibility 
than this. And to explain my meaning, I must make 
an introductory remark. 

It is very evident, and is admitted by all, that there 
is a vast number of propositions, which are not on the 
one hand integral portions of the Deposit, nor yet, on 
the other hand, directly contradictory to it ; but which 
nevertheless have with it a very intimate connection. 
Nor are these propositions at all exclusively theological. 
There are very many opinions on secular matters, which 
bear very importantly upon religion, in the sphere, 
e.g., of philosophy, of experimental science, of litera- 
ture, of history. As Archbishop Manning points out, 
" the revelation of supernatural truth is in contact 
with natural ethics, and politics, and philosophy; " so 
that a vast number of propositions, in these regions of 
thought, may in many different ways be very injurious 
to the Deposit. Further it is admitted by all, that the 
Church is in the constant habit of animadverting on 
these various anti- Catholic propositions ; both on those 
which are theological, and no less on those which in 
themselves are secular. Father Ryder however denies, 
while I maintain, that the Church is infallible in these 
animadversions ; and further, that she herself teaches 
her own possession of that infallibility. 

The animadversions of which I speak assume two 
different shapes ; and with these respectively cor- 
respond the two several points, discussed between 
F. Eyder and myself. 

(1.) Very frequently the Church expresses in precise 
and accurate form, various tenets which she censures 
as " erroneous," " temerarious," " dangerous to faith," 
and the like; not unfrequently again she contents 
herself, as in the recent Syllabus, with condemning 



them, without branding on them any 'particular cen- 
sure. My own contention is — as will be evident from 
what I have above said — that she is infallible in all 
these minor censures. F. Byder on the other hand, con- 
sistently with his principles, draws a distinction. The 
term " erroneous " is universally understood to signify 
that the tenet thus censured leads, by necessary conse- 
quence, to a denial of something which the Apostles 
taught. F. Ryder therefore considers the Church 
infallible in this particular censure ; because he looks 
on an "erroneous " proposition as actually contradict- 
ing a portion of the Deposit. As regards, however, 
censures less serious than this, he denies the Church's 
xnfallibility. He admits readily that there is a high 
probability of her being right ; that it would be very 
dangerous to hold with confidence any proposition 
which she has censured ; and the like : but he contends 
that no such absolute and unreserved submission of 
mind is due from Catholics to these censures, as would 
be required by a judgment strictly infallible. 

(2.) Another way in which the Holy Father very 
frequently pronounces on those anti-Catholic opinions 
which are not heresies, is by way of Allocution, En- 
cyclical, or other similar Act. Here, again, F. Eyder 
denies, and I maintain — not, of course, that the various 
arguments and obiter dicta found in such utterances 
are infallible — but that the doctrinal instructions con- 
veyed in them possess that privilege. F. Ryder 
willingly admits that a Catholic should listen to such 
instructions with respect and docility ; that they are 
in a special manner under the guidance of the Holy 
Spirit ; and the like : but he joins issue on the 
question of their actual infallibility. 

These, then, are the only two points, so far as I 
can see, at issue between us : (1) the Church's minor 
censures ; and (2) the doctrinal instruction contained 
in such Pontifical Acts as Allocutions and Encyclicals. 
Not only do I maintain that these are infallible, but I 
cannot for one to/ ^ent admit that the question is 



6 

obscure or uncertain. In regard, indeed, to minor 
censures, how any Catholic can possibly doubt the 
Church's infallibility in pronouncing them — especially 
considering all the circumstances connected with the 
Bull "Unigenitus" — I find it difficult even to guess. 
But even as to the second point of controversy between 
F. Ryder and myself, I contend that whoever will fairly 
confront the evidence which I have brought together, 
will find it impossible to doubt, that I do but ascribe 
to the Church that infallibility, which she herself dis- 
tinctly claims. The evidence completely overcame my 
own mind ; and I believe that neither F. Ryder nor 
any other Catholic is much less disposed to believe 
the infallibility of Allocutions and Encyclicals, than 
I was myself during many years of my Catholic life. 

Further it will be plain to all, I think, that the 
issue cannot possibly be considered as one of small 
importance. If God have indeed granted the Church 
so large a gift of infallibility, He has not done so for 
any small or insignificant end ; and those, therefore, 
who represent the gift of infallibility as far smaller 
in extent than it really is, must be in fact, however 
unintentionally, inflicting a grievous wound on the in- 
terests of Truth. This anticipation moreover, I would 
earnestly contend, is abundantly borne out by reason 
and experience. But it is quite impossible to treat 
this latter theme at all, without entering on it at 
length ; and for entering on it at length this is not 
the appropriate occasion. It is a matter which will, I 
hope, be brought again and again before the notice of 
Catholics in the pages of the Dublin Review. 

I will also say briefly, but have no space for enlarg- 
ing on this pregnant consideration, that the moral 
habit of mind which must in the long run be generated, 
by denying infallible authority to any portion of the 
Church's teaching, is another reason for earnestly 
vindicating its claim to that authority. A Catholic's 
whole attitude towards the Church is profoundly 
affected by the alternative. 



I will conclude this Preface with one explanation, 
which is imperatively required. In the following 
letter I more than once call the controversy between 
F. Ryder and myself "momentous" and "vital"; 
but it may well be asked how I can thus speak, con- 
sidering that my opponent is a Catholic priest, and 
considering that I fully admit him to be in real truth 
a brother in the Faith. I think my meaning may be 
made very clear, by help of the trite illustration derived 
from a citadel and its outworks. Let me put it thus : 

A zealous army is defending a beleaguered fortress. 
There are various outworks, most essential to the 
safety of the citadel ; and our commander has given us 
strict orders to defend them securely at whatever risk. 
Certain soldiers, however, have either not listened 
to his instruction or have misapprehended it ; and 
we see them preparing to surrender these various 
external positions. We cry out to them in distress 
and amazement, that they are disobeying our com- 
mander, and are doing our cause an irreparable injury. 
And yet our feeling towards them is quite different 
in kind, from our feeling towards the enemy who 
is assaulting our stronghold itself. Nor need there 
be reason to doubt, that these eccentric and ill- 
disciplined combatants are as zealous as we are for 
the security of the fortress ; and would feel it to be 
their highest privilege, had they the opportunity of 
laying down their lives in its defence. 



LETTER TO REV. FATHER RYDER 
BY DR. WARD. 



Eev. Dear Sir, — 

You have published a criticism of certain theological 
views which I advocate concerning the extent of the Church's 
infallibility ; * and there is one point, at least, on which we 
thoroughly agree, viz., the momentousness of the point at 
issue. As regards, indeed, many of those matters which at 
this time excite the widest interest in the Church, you will 
concur with me, that a Catholic's whole course of thought 
and speech must be at every moment fundamentally affected, 
by the doctrine he may hold on this particular subject. 

I will frankly avow however my regret, at the space you 
have devoted to an analysis of my supposed intellectual pecu- 
liarities j your very title, your very motto refer to these. In 
all this I have not observed one trace of unkindness or 
bitterness ; nor do I think you have at all exceeded the legiti- 
mate bounds of public criticism : still less do I dream of 
attributing to you any "intentional discourtesy" (Preface). 
Yet I do greatly regret, that a momentous theological dis- 
cussion has not been conducted exclusively on purely theolo- 
gical and philosophical grounds. My intellectual characteristics, 
whatever they may be, have really nothing to do with the 
question. To read your pages, one would imagine that I 
had been inventing some extreme and unheard of theory; 
whereas I must maintain that I have done nothing else than 
follow in the wake of all approved theologians, without excep- 
tion. And though you do not agree with me in the whole of 
this statement, you cannot yourself deny that a large number 

* " Idealism in Theology, a Keview of Dr. Ward's Scheme of Dogmatic 
Authority :" by H. \ D. Ryder, of the Oratory. London : Longman. 

T, 



t v Our Archbishop, e. q., 
again, you admit jg. *£ ^ . g dogn^cal ft* 

Stills vLws - £-£*$" Aga,n a se^so 
Review for April, 1867, PP^ (Freifiurg) on _ tw 

naners is coming out by if™ ta s written the first ol 
Cyclical and Sy fljus rjj* £ss fi ^ —ncemente 
thJe, wfiicfi ib °^? a Se y infallftifity- ^'^^1 

trfW^S^^^ r Si wfn find m tn k tfie 
h0n Tin y fie IS wfiicfi my ^ readers -U Jd^ ^ 

.-. • ^ ihp Holy Ghost," 
*.- .V " The Temporal Mission of _ the ri ? 

definitions of the Church m ^^ with naUvrai e ^ of Tra nsub- 

lation of **P^^I^of the Consubstantialrty of the to ^ , t of 

philosophy. T ^\tte Constitntion of ^uniamty, to^h ^ ^.^^ 
stantiation, and of ■ ^ ^ order ; but being in P^J^ents of Pontiffs 
philosophy ^ d . of .^rSthe Church. So agamthe^a ^ ^ con . 

kh within the mfa^ty oi q£ ^ ^ e Church s are? ^ 

in matters which affect ^the w larations that buch^ scall dalous, 

denmation of propositions ^^ of heresy, or erroneous, or it 

t^mayhe ^et^or^vour, ^ ^ w^ta^^^^ 

or offensive to P 10U + b J^ tiifs f ro m error, and such ji <W* to gtat e m 

Patterns those whoml^edt <»*£V ft**** 



11 

other name than that of irrelevant personality. Your wish, 
no less than mine, must be that the attention of thoughtful 
Catholics shall be concentrated, on the vitally important 
theological argument between us. 

However, these criticisms of my intellectual character have 
led you to make one statement, referring to a matter not of 
opinion but of fact. On this statement I will at once comment, 
because it may in some degree affect the judgment of many 
readers on the point at issue. You consider that I ascribe to 
the Church a certain infallibility — not because she most unmis- 
takably claims that infallibility (which is my real reason), but 
on grounds purely a priori; in order that she may " meet all 
the requirements of my ideal " (p. 12). Now there cannot be 
a more fundamental misapprehension than this, of the process 
which in fact led me to my conclusions. And as your view of 
my mental history would lead to a just prejudice against those 
conclusions themselves, I trust I shall not be charged with 
egotism, if I obtrude a little scrap of autobiography. 

Certainly at no period of my Catholic life have I doubted, 
that the Church is as simply infallible in pronouncing minor 
censures, as in pronouncing that of heresy ; and I am more 
amazed than I can well express (for reasons presently to be 
given) that you or any other Catholic can possibly question this. 
But as to Encyclicals and other similar Pontifical pronounce- 
ments, for many years after my conversion I held no other view 
concerning their authority, than that which I express (not of 
course as now my own) in p. 44 of the work which you cri- 
ticise; and which does not differ essentially from yours (p. 18). 
I had not derived this view from any standard Catholic 
authority ; for no such authority that I know of can be found to 
sanction it : I had imbibed it (I believe) from a certain living 
influence, to which, when I was first a Catholic, I surrendered 
myself without reserve. As long as I was teaching at St. 
Edmund's, I was occupied with theology proper, on which this 
particular class of Pontifical instructions throws comparatively 
little light : it never therefore occurred to me, to enter on a 
deliberate examination of the point now at issue between you 
and me. But the case was very different when my professor- 
ship came to an end. I then naturally gave my mind, not only 
to what had hitherto absorbed it, but also to the questions pro- 
minently agitated among thoughtful Catholics of the present 
time. Such questions were — the Pope's civil sovereignty ; 
the true relation between theology and secular science ■ the 
degree of private judgment permissible in studying the latter ; 
the various ontologistic, traditionalistic, and other philoso- 
phical systems ; the so-called " principle of religious liberty " 



■u + I became aware 

Infallible au&orit^ ^ gest prepossession he 

it remembered ^to^ t of . yoll rs. .^prepossessions 

of ^^ reS rl° P my Wness to put .aside a ^ JJ 0Iie i SS ne ; 
firs t,that ^^ Concentrate my attentmn° concerning the 
or "ideals, and to , g ^ teaching j found 

_what was the &°X To m y extreme surp ^ ^ 

« rient ° f ^ohS Sistible that he claims th ^ ^ 
evidence absolutely ^ T t bM pr0 nounce- 

tent which I now ascri^ ^ puts forth sucU P^.^^ 

certain to my mmd ^ s them £rt J 

ments at all, ™ a * ds a h doctrina .instru j ^ 

infalMUsofM^S fore p found , this tam% an d 

m a Y contain. w x ae ^ hnt to accept the cia , ^ te a nd 
Sng fofer jo < o but ^ i»*^* *^. 
unreservedly ; and .wj? who i e course j waS 

unquestioned snpremacy m supposing thoge 

UD ^ou are most ^stahen t rf V^^T&e I &lt me 8 * 
led to this OF-O^cntly °-^?tp 45 'of doctrinal 
prepossessions w fe state d m P- * fl rte torical, 

Ugly ^f^cnhy founded on ^ ^SSutteranc- 
Decisions >-; a " fi cn aracter of these r forC ed were 

rather than scienUfic, ch ^^ wal eh ther judg . 
Moreover, the particu 1 ^ re pugnant to my P^ to - 
in many respe cte »°« art ionlar indeed, 1 am acoepted 

ment. As to tog of instances what ^ t 

that, in *Y a ^ und of Authority, has now com ^ ^ 
on the ^^onelnsions of ^j" SO nal ^ m 
harmony with the sacrifice ot p 

T had to make a veiy & f lllble . ^ichvoumore 

accepting these decision^ i oir cumstance to ^hmh ^ from 
And here 1 explam easnv eceW ed com ^ & 




But further, was J., 



13 

Review discussions on the Pope's temporal sovereignty? on the 
relations of sacred and secular science ? on the ' ' principle of 
religious liberty ? " What kind of Catholic Review would it 
be, which should systematically omit all treatment of these sub- 
jects ? Yet it was absolutely impossible to treat them at all, 
without alleging either that the Church has, or that she has 
not, put forth certain infallible doctrines concerning them. 
But had I merely assumed that she has, there would have been 
real ground for the charge of peremptory dogmatism. I cannot 
imagine then what course was open to me, except that which 
I actually took. I stated indeed confidently, that there is a vast 
body of infallible teaching on all these matters, and explained 
where I thought such teaching was to be found; but at the 
same time I stated, as fully and clearly as I could, the various 
reasons which induced me thus confidently to think. 

In illustration of what I have said, I will quote some remarks 
which I made in January, 1865, and which are reprinted in my 
volume, pp. 61-2 : — 

It has been objected, that no important end is gained, while divisions are 
generated and increased, by obtruding on notice a doubtful and extreme 
theory. We must profess ourselves quite unable to understand the grounds 
of this objection. Consider the vast number of politico-religious questions, 
such as those determined in the " Mirari vos ;" consider, again, the vast 
number of philosophical questions, such as those involved in the condemna- 
tion of Hermes and of Giinther : how enormous is their reach, and how pro- 
found their influence ! The whole mental attitude of an educated Catholic, 
towards the Church and towards Eome, is absolutely revolutionized, when 
he comes round from the contrary opinion to that of regarding her as infal- 
lible on such questions. At this moment a great interest is felt, as to pro- 
viding a higher education for our gentry ; and much difference of opinion 
prevails, on the best method of doing so. But on one point all thinkers 
must be unanimous ; viz., in counting it among the most momentous neces- 
sities of our time, that such education should inculcate true doctrine on the 
extent of the Church's infallibility, whatever they may consider such true 
doctrine to be. Never was there a controversy which it is less possible to 
ignore. Certainly, to insist on a doubtful theory as though it were certain, 
is most unjustifiable and tends to schism ; but to treat a closed question as 
though it were an open one, is no less unjustifiable and tends to heresy. 

I pass to another subject. In one or two portions of your 
pamphlet {e.g., Preface, and also p. 53) you comment on my 
frequent complaints of having received no argumentative reply 
to my various articles. Your words will be understood by 
some to mean — I incline to think they are in some degree 
intended by you to mean— that these complaints of mine have 
been unreal ; that they have been ' ( taunts " (as you call them) 



14 

and boastings rather than complaints; and that I shall not be best 
pleased, now I have obtain eel the reply which I professed to desire. 
If you do entertain this impression, I assure you it is unfounded. 
I felt I had much reason for remonstrance. In Jan. 1865 I 
first stated my general proposition, together with the grounds 
on which I rested it. From that day onwards — more than two 
years ago — I have been assailed with invective and contumely : 
" farrago of nonsense;" " monstrous;" " unheard of;" "savour- 
ing of monomania;" — such have been the comments on my 
allegation. Accordingly I have often enough exclaimed — M Do 
argue ; do tell me what you think and why you think it ; but 
cease from this wearisome, monotonous, unmeaning, declamatory 
chaunt." I hail your pamphlet therefore with sincere plea- 
sure, so far as it is occupied with argument and not with per- 
sonality. I earnestly hope it may turn the attention of more 
distinguished theologians than you and me, to a matter which 
(I cannot but think) has been in general less prominently and 
completely treated, than its fundamental importance deserves. 
At the same time, even as regards the argumentative part 
of your work, I have much reason to complain. I am quite 
sure your own intentions have been perfectly honest and 
straightforward; for I well know how greatly adverse pre- 
possessions obscure clearness of perception. But I do say, that 
if your wish had been to throw dust into your readers' eyes, 
you could not have forwarded that end more effectively. My 
argument throughout, whatever its force, has at all events 
been so simple and intelligible in its character, that a child 
could follow it. The Pope, I have said, has put forth certain 
pronouncements; and whoever will look at their attendant 
circumstances with even the slightest and most ordinary atten- 
tion, will see both that he put them forth as infallible, and that 
the Episcopate so accepted them. But the Church possesses 
whatever infallibility she claims; and hence my conclusion. In no 
one instance have you attempted fairly to confront this allegation. 
Instead of doing so, you have drawn off your readers' attention 
to various perplexed and subtle theological questions : concern- 
ing " divine " and " ecclesiastical " faith; " fides quoad- objec- 
tum," and " fides quoad obligationem ;" and the like. Now this 
procedure in two different ways throws dust into your readers' 
eyes. Firstly and obviously, it tends to divert them from 
pondering the direct reasons I give for my thesis. Then 
secondly, the questions on which you descant not only are 
difficult in themselves, but become in your hands (I must say) 
far more difficult than they need be. Your readers then, 
unless put on their guard, will unawares receive the impression 
that which ever of us two is right, at all events the issue 



15 

between us is obscure and uncertain. But if you persuade 
your readers that it is obscure and uncertain, you obtain 
your practical end just as successfully, as by persuading them 
that your own view is the true one. In mere self-defence 
then, on the present occasion I must entirely decline to 
follow you along these devious paths. The points you touch 
have their own interest and importance ; and I think I may 
venture to promise that, unless something happens alto- 
gether unforeseen, they shall be all treated in the Dublin 
Review within a year from this time. Still if you will but 
fairly give your attention to what follows in the present letter, 
you will admit (I am confident) that they are wholly irrelevant 
to our present discussion ; and that our only concern with them 
is to warn them off the ground. I shall direct my argument 
in this letter exclusively to one point ; viz., that the Church 
most unquestionably teaches in substance that doctrine which 
I advocate. Whatever the value of your objections — and I 
think their value very small — they are objections, not against 
the opinions of an individual, but against the teaching of the 
Church. 

I would make a second general comment on your pamphlet, 
which is closely connected with the first. You judge the Pope's 
teaching by the dicta of individual theologians ; whereas surely 
every Catholic should on the contrary estimate these dicta 
by the Pope's teaching. I do not for a moment admit 
that you rightly apprehend those testimonies of theologians, 
which you thus quote; on the contrary you have paid the 
penalty of thus exaggerating their authority, by failing to 
see on which side that authority really stands. But apart 
from this — even if I could admit that you have rightly un- 
derstood their drift — I should protest none the less earnestly 
against the place you assign them. Let me illustrate my 
meaning by a case not absolutely unparallel. We all know 
that in time past many theologians held the undefinableness of 
the Immaculate Conception. Some few priests within my own 
memory have been of that opinion ; and I heard, on apparently 
good authority, of one who, even at the beginning of Decem- 
ber 1854, was firmly convinced God would interpose to pre- 
vent the definition. All this was intelligible and legitimate. 
But now, suppose some unhappy man had gone further than 
this. Such a man, we may imagine, rested on the dicta of 
those theologians who denied the definableness of the dogma; 
and was firmly convinced, on the authority of those dicta, that 
no real definition had taken place. He did not deny that there 
was every external appearance of the Pope publishing a de- 
finition. Yet on the strength of those theological principles 



16 

which he had learned at College, he strenously maintained that 
there could be no true definition, because the Church has no 
power of defining the doctrine. I do not accuse you of pur- 
suing a course strictly parallel to this imagined case ; but I do 
think there is a certain approximation between the two. Let 
me suppose for argument's sake, what I cannot for a moment 
concede, that you have understood rightly the theologians 
you quote. But my own argument has been — an argument 
which you do not attempt to encounter — that Pope and 
bishops have claimed that very infallibility which I ascribe 
to them. It is for the Ecclesia Docens, I suppose, and 
not for private theologians, to decide the extent of her own 
infallibility. 

You admit however speculatively, that "the Church pos- 
sesses whatever infallibility she claims " (p. 25). Again (p. 13), 
you are not a Grallican. And though I think that the Grallican 
controversy is under present circumstances of very far inferior 
importance to that on which you and I are now engaged, 
yet there is some convenience in your not being a Gallican. 
Our respective arguments will not on that account be different 
in substance; but they will be much less cumbrous in 
form. You hold, no less than I do, that whatever decisions 
of the Ecclesia Docens possess infallibility at all, they possess 
that infallibility so soon as the Pope has pronounced them. 
Lastly, not being a Gallican, you hold (I take for granted) that 
all doctrinal decisions put forth by the Pope as Universal 
Teacher, or in other words ex cathedra,* are infallibly true. 
These data being granted, we are now inquiring what are the 
doctrinal decisions uttered by the Pope ex cathedra. And in 
pursuing this inquiry, I will reverse your own order. I will 
first consider his formal pronouncement of minor censures ; 
and afterwards his Allocutions, Encyclicals, and other similar 
utterances. Firstly then I maintain against you, that he 
speaks ex cathedra, not only when he condemns this or that 
tenet as heretical, but equally when he brands it with some 
minor censure. 

But before beginning my argument, I must correct a very 
serious misapprehension of my meaning into which you have 
fallen, and which occupies a very prominent place in your 
pamphlet. You most strangely consider me (p. 46) to rule it 
as certain that every proposition, censured at all, is censured 



* There is no need of discussing with F. Eyder the question of fact 
which he raises in p. 45 on the more common sense of this phrase. I shall 
consistently use it in the above-given sense. 



17 

as false. No doubt, I hold this opinion myself;* agreeing as 
I do with the whole of Dr. Murray's argument on the subject 
(vol. hi. p. 229). But I have always been well aware that the 
question is thoroughly open; and I really doubt if I have 
ever expressed on any former occasion so much as the opinion 
which I have just given. Certainly I have not expressed it 
in the passage you cite at p. 46 : for ' c unsound " is undeniably 
a species of the genus ' c untrue ; " and a proposition which 
should have been censured for any other reason than that of 
being "untrue/' most assuredly could not have been con- 
demned as " unsound." The question, in fact, has no bearing 
on any conclusion which I have ever desired to recommend ; 
nor am I keen for any other doctrine on the subject, except 
only for this, that the Church is infallible in her minor cen- 
sures. This doctrine you deny (p. 52) ; you deny that " the 
proposition infallibly merits the censure attached to it." And 
here is the first question on which we are to join issue. You 
hold that the Church is infallible indeed, in affixing the parti- 
cular brand of " erroneous y" but not in pronouncing any of 
the other minor censures. 

How any one, with Catholic theology or even Catholic 
literature before him, can doubt the Church's infallibility in 
all her minor censures, I am simply at a loss to understand : 
for that infallibility appears to me absolutely undeniable, 
according to the most elementary principles of Catholicism. 
You may possibly indeed object, that the Church has never 
expressly defined it : but neither has she expressly defined her 
infallibility in definitions of faith; and yet you will yourself admit 
that he who doubts that infallibility is no Catholic at all. As 
to definitions of faith, I suppose you would speak much as I 
should. The Church Catholic, you would say, by divine promise 
sedulously and incorruptly guards the Faith against every 
assault, both in her formal and her practical teaching ; and all 
her children are to look on her as their one infallible guide to 
religious truth. This was taught in substance from the first 
as de fide. As time proceeded, the Ecclesia Docens began to 
employ much intellectual analysis, both in defining her doctrine 
and in formulizing the heresies which she condemned ; and it 
was involved in the very idea of her infallibility, that if she 
did define, these definitions were infallible. An individual 
bishop might make a mistake in some doctrinal decree ad- 
dressed to his diocese ; but then an appeal lay from him to the 



* I need hardly explain that there is a vast difference between a proposi- 
tion being censured on the one hand, and its expression being prohibited on 
the other hand. 

b 



18 

Holy See. An " irreforruable " was an " infallible '* definition ; 
and the Church could not err in those decisions which were 
final and supreme. By the very fact therefore of putting 
forth a definition of Faith, the Church implicitly defined her 
infallibility in that definition. 

But surely the whole of this argument applies with equal 
force to minor censures also. The Council of Constance was 
perhaps the first prominent instance of their use. " This 
sacrosanct Synod of Constance declares and defines that the 
following propositions .... are not Catholic nor to be 
asserted as such, but that many of them are erroneous, others 
scandalous, others offensive to pious ears, &c." * Here, as 
you will fully admit, is the decree of an Ecumenical Council 
acting conciharly, and a decree confirmed by the Pope. Looking 
at the mere form, it is not too much to say that the Pope by 
sanctioning this solemn declaration would have directly led the 
whole Church into error, had he intended to claim for it a 
less peremptory authority, than for those definitions of Faith 
which earlier Councils had so constantly put forth. And 
looking at the substance, it is plainly involved in the very 
principle of infallibility, that if the Church issues such a 
definition at all, she must issue it infallibly. In this decree, 
just as in those of Nicsea or Ephesus, by the fact of defining 
at all, the Church implicitly defines her infallibility in such 
definition. 

In real truth, I find it simply impossible to apprehend your 
point of view. You admit that the Pope is infallible, whenever 
he speaks as Universal Teacher; as successor to S. Peter in 
his office of instructing the Christian flock. Well : he puts 
out some pronouncement, according to the Papal custom, in 
which he appeals to the duty incumbent on him, as S. Peter's 
successor, of preserving doctrinal purity in the Church. In 
performance of that duty, he adds, as inheritor of S. Peter's 
unfailing faith, and after taking due counsel, he pronounces 
certain tenets to deserve certain censures. It is your distinct 
contention, that he does not put forth such an utterance 
in his capacity of Universal Teacher. Is there a Catholic 
priest, nay, is there an instructed Catholic layman, in the 
world, who will not marvel at your even raising such a 
question ? 

However, to drive the matter still more closely home, I will 
take two samples in particular, representing two different 
classes of decision : the Bull " Unigenitus " and the Bull 
f Auctorem Fidei." The former pronounces its censures " in 

* Quoted by Dr. Murray, vol. iii. p. 239. 



19 

globo "; i. e. without specifying which censure is meant for 
which proposition : whereas the " Auctorem Fidei " brands 
each several proposition with its appropriate note or notes. 
The ' ' Unigenitus " speaks thus: — "We [Clement XI.] com- 
mand all Christ's faithful, of either sex, that they do not 
presume to think, teach, preach concerning these propositions, 
otherwise than is contained in this same Our Constitution." 
The "Auctorem Fidei" thus : — " We [Pius VI.] command all 
Christians, of either sex, that they presume not to think, teach, 
preach concerning the said propositions and doctrines, contra- 
riwise to what is declared in this Our Constitution."* When 
a Pope strictly forbids all Catholics to think otherwise than 
after a certain fashion, in what imaginable capacity can he 
be speaking, except in that of Universal Teacher ? 

And here I shall defend a statement of mine, which greatly 
offends you. When the Pope strictly commands all the 
faithful to think in one particular way, it is surely more like a 
Catholic truism than like an anti- Catholic paradox, to say 
that any one materially commits mortal sin who, well knowing 
that command, " presumes " to disobey it. I say " mate- 
rially " : because I must repeat, though (p. 14) you seem to 
think I inflict "ignominy" on you by the statement, that 
invincible ignorance of the obligation is no doubt abundantly 
possible. 

Next let us see how this Bull " Unigenitus " was accepted 
by the Church. On this I have spoken in my Preface, pp. 
xxi., xxii. "It was acknowledged," say the Wiirtzburg theo- 
logians, " and proclaimed as a dogmatical definition by all the 
Supreme Pontiffs who followed Clement XI. ; by the Synods 
of Eome, of Avignon, and of Embrun ; by the French bishops 
in various assemblies and pastorals ; by the metropolitans of 
the Catholic world with the express or tacit consent of their 
suffragans." The Council of Embrun said, it "is the dogmatic, 
definitive, and irretractable judgment of that Church," against 
which the gates of hell shall not prevail. "If any one does not 
assent to it in heart and mind, let him be accounted among 
those who have made shipwreck concerning the Faith." I 
submit that the phrase " have made shipwreck concerning 
the Faith," is at least as strong as the phrase " have materially 
committed mortal sin." 

Further, as I pointed out in p. xxiv., you are landed by 
your view in a direct self-contradiction concerning all those 

* F. Ryder has not remembered these Papal commands ; for he says 
(p. 52) that " the duty of interior absolute assent is not expressly stated " 
in any such censures. 

62 



20 

Pontifical utterances — such, as the condemnations of Luther, 
Baius, Molinos, Quesnel — in which the censures are " in globo," 
and in which the brand of " heretical " is included. Since 
the Pope condemns certain tenets as heretical, you must admit 
that some part of his pronouncement is ex cathedra. But 
there is no single tenet which can be named, of which you can 
say that it has been condemned by him as heretical or as 
" erroneous " ; consequently no part of the pronouncement 
can be received by you as ex cathedra. 

In one word, you will not yourself (I really expect) on re- 
flection deny, that the condemnation of Baius and of Quesnel 
(not to dwell on the other two) were pronounced by the Pope 
in his capacity of Universal Teacher. But you admit him to 
be infallible wherever he speaks as Universal Teacher ; and 
you must admit him therefore to be infallible where he pro- 
nounces minor censures. 

I have not here adduced any argument, which had not been 
brought forward in substance, either by Dr. Murray or myself, 
before your pamphlet was written ; and on receiving the latter, 
I was really curious to see what would be your line of auswer. 
For what I found I was certainly not prepared; viz., that you 
should attempt no kind of answer at all. Yet such is the 
case. You seem really to think that the Pope has nothing 
to tell us on the extent of his own infallibility ; that he has 
left us to work out conclusions for ourselves on the subject, 
by means of our own precarious inferences from the incidental 
dicta of theologians. It is really no exaggeration to say, either 
that you appeal to these against Pope and bishops ; or even that 
you ignore the latter altogether. This is the accusation which 
I brought against you at starting ; and of which our readers 
I think will now see that it was well deserved. 

It would be strange however, if approved theologians dial 
run counter to what the Church so plainly teaches. I will 
carefuly consider in the Dublin Review all your theological 
quotations without exception ; but my present business is 
merely to show, that they give you no help whatever in the 
present controversy. Lugo says (see Doct. Dec, p. 28) 
that theologians in general teach the Church's infallibility in 
minor censures ; that some regard a denial of that infallibility 
as heretical, and others (of whom he is one) as erroneous or 
bordering thereon. It is very obvious then at once, that the 
overwhelming preponderance of theological authority is on my 
side. But this is by no means all. You admit yourself (p. 52) 
that " the schola seems agreed in condemning, as at least 
proximate to error, the denial that any of the condemned 
propositions merit the censure which the Church attaches to 



21 

theni " : though, you draw a curious distinction between non- 
denial and "absolute interior assent." Then consider this. 
Your proposition is most simple and definite; viz ., that the 
Church is fallible in most of her minor censures : and it is a 
simple fact, that you have not adduced one single theologian., 
great or small, approved or otherwise, who has stated in so 
many words this most easily expressed proposition. In note B, 
you accumulate the strongest theological evidence you can find 
in your favour, from writers who are speaking directly on the 
point at issue ; and every one of your passages implies that 
very doctrine of infallibility, for which I am contending. The 
only writer who can be mistaken for an exception, is Pallavi- 
cini; and he is rightly explained by yourself (p. 48) as mean- 
ing — not that the Church is fallible in such censures — but that 
they do not necessarily imply falsehood in the condemned 
proposition. At last, however, my chief point is this. Any 
theologian who upheld the Church's fallibility in minor cen- 
sures, must maintain (as we have seen) that the Pope is not 
speaking* as Universal Teacher, when he directly issues a 
decree commanding all the faithful to think in some particular 
way ; and that neither Baius nor Quesnel has been infallibly 
condemned at all. You will not on reflection, I am very con- 
fident, allege that any one of your authorities held such a view; 
and indeed I shall be somewhat surprised if you do not your- 
self abandon it. 

That the Church then is infallible in those minor censures 
which she definitely and solemnly pronounces, is so absolutely 
certain, that I am quite unable to understand how any Catholic 
can possibly call it in question. I next proceed to the doctrinal 
decisions contained in Allocutions, Encyclicals, and other Apo- 
stolic Letters. And I beg our readers to observe in limine this 
most significant fact, that you have adduced no general argu- 
ment whatever against the infallibility of these decisions, which 
would not equally tell against what is so absolutely undeniable ; 
viz., the infallibility of definitely expressed censures. My own 
writings in the Dublin Beview have been far more addressed 
to the position on which we are now entering than to the other : 
precisely because the other was so very clear, while the " Ency- 
clical " question seemed to need much illustration and expo- 
sition. My method of procedure however has been in both 
cases precisely the same. I have laboured for one and one 
only end — viz., to ascertain what is the Pope's own teaching 
on the authority of his own instructions. From p. 46 to p. 48 
of my volume on " Doctrinal Decisions," I give briefly more 
than one proof that he claims for them infallibility ; and you 



22 

have attempted no reply whatever. I cannot abridge these 
pages, and can only therefore beg my readers to examine and 
ponder them. I entered at length however on two particular 
utterances, which I took as representative instances : these 
were (1) the "Mirari vos," and (2) the "Quanta cura," with 
its appended Syllabus. If these were infallible in their doc- 
trinal instruction, you will yourself admit that similar pro- 
nouncements possess the same infallibility. Let me here 
then briefly go over the ground, which is treated at much 
greater length in my volume itself. And first on the " Mirari 
vos." 

When Lamennais came into collision with the French bishops, 
each party avowedly sought an infallible decision; and the 
Pope, on issuing the Encyclical, declared through Cardinal 
Pacca that he had acceded to this double request. He declared 
at once then, that he had published the ' ' Mirari vos " as an 
infallible decision (pp. 55-6). Lamennais, without a moment's 
delay, promised obedience to the Pope's command of silence ; 
but he ominously avoided all reference to accepting the Pope's 
doctrine with interior assent. At this (p. 57), general distrust 
and discontent were excited, and Catholics compared his con- 
duct to the " respectful silence " of Jansenistic heretics. The 
Holy Father echoed this distrust. He declared at once expressly 
(pp. 57-8), that he had passed his judgment on Lamennais' 
errors in his capacity of successor to 8. Peter's infallibility ; that 
the judgment was intended to teach all the children of the 
Church ; and that the doctrine thus delivered, derived as it was 
from Scripture and Tradition, is that which alone it is lawful 
to follow. Words cannot surely be imagined which would more 
distinctly express, that he had issued the " Mirari vos " in 
his capacity of Universal Teacher. Gregory XYI. then ex- 
pressed his grief at the sinister reports in circulation, and 
prayed that God would give Lamennais a docile heart. 
The latter at once replied, that his obedience had been com- 
plete; but the Pope rejoined that, not external obedience only, 
but interior assent was required (p. 59). Soon afterwards, 
Cardinal Pacca wrote by the Pope's command, declaring 
(p. 60) that the decision had come from " Peter's infallible 
mouth," and that " unreserved and unequivocal adhesion " 
was required "to the doctrine of the Encyclical." I say then, 
neither you nor any one else — be he Catholic, Protestant, or 
infidel — can possibly deny that the Pope put forth, in every 
variety of shape, a claim of infallibility for the ' ' Mirari vos." 

To all this I can find but two replies in your pamphlet ; and 
I know not which is the less satisfactory. Firstly you say 
(p. 16), that a certain theologian whom you name "warns us 



23 

against considering that even the circumstance of the contend- 
ing parties demanding an infallible pronouncement on a point 
of doctrine, and the Pope apparently acceding to them, is a 
sufficient ground for presuming the pronouncement infallible. - ''' 
We had better however be quite accurate in our facts. The 
Pope did not " apparently " accede to the request ; he wrote 
at once by Cardinal Pacca, saying expressly that he had 
acceded to it. Now let me suppose some unwise theologian 
had said, that such a fact is not conclusive of the Pope's inten- 
tion : which would you believe as to the Pope's intention, 
some theologian or the Pope himself? Your tendency through- 
out seems really to the former alternative. However, take a 
concrete case. Let us suppose that you or I had been cen- 
sured by the Pope, and had received, in company with this 
censure, a letter written by the Pope's command, to explain 
that he had issued the censure as (C a solemn decision from the 
infallible mouth of S. Peter's successor.-" We refuse however 
to believe the Pope's own word on his own intention, because 
we have hunted up some private theologian, who seems to 
bear us out in such misbelief. Tell me frankly what would 
be your own opinion on such an hypothetical case. 

At the same time the supposition does seem so impro- 
bable of any theologian having uttered this strange opinion, 
that I turned with eagerness to the passage ; which you have 
printed with great candour in extenso, pp. 73-4. I could find 
however no statement even distantly resembling that which 
you allege ; and am indeed somewhat uncertain, which of the 
theologian's sentences you had in your mind. I suppose how- 
ever it must be that from p. 222 ; where he says that it depends 
on the Pope, and not on those who consult the Pope, whethe 
on any given occasion the Pope shall exercise his prerogative 
of infallibility. But who in the world ever doubted this? 
Certainly not I. Or what has it to do with the point before 
us ? Nothing whatever. I must be allowed to add, that so 
considerable a misapprehension of a very plain passage shows 
how impossible it is for inquirers to accept your statement on 
the views of any theologian, till they have carefully examined 
his text for themselves. 

I know not why, but somehow you seem to think that your 
objection derives peculiar force, from the fact of this theologian 
having afterwards become Pope Gregory XYI. But so far as 
this fact has any weight at all, surely it rather tells against you^ 
by neutralizing the alleged authority of that one theologian on 
whom you rely. You think that, before he w T as Pope, he would 
have doubted the infallibility of such an utterance as the 
" Mirari vos " ; but you cannot deny that, after he was Pope,- 



24 

his opinion was extremely strong on the opposite side. If 
therefore he had once held the opinion yon ascribe to him — 
a most mistaken supposition — at all events he emphatically 
retracted that opinion, when his authority was far greater, and 
his means of judgment far more extensive. 

From page 15 to page 19 you speak with much less clearness 
and precision than I could wish ; yet you say enough to show 
how vast is the gulf between Gregory XVI.'s view of an 
Encyclical and yours. You hold e.g. (p. 17) that the Pope in 
i{ speaking his mind on doctrinal subjects to the Church" does 
not therefore " impose the burden (!) of absolute interior assent 
upon the consciences of the faithful." Gregory XVL, at all 
events, ' c imposed that burden " very peremptorily. " There 
is no proof," you say (p. 19), that " Encyclicals are intended 
to do more than throw the weight of the Holy See for the time 
into the opposite scale." But Gregory XVI. announced that 
he had spoken in S. Peter's name, " whose faith resists all 
errors" (p. 57) : that he had " opportunely taught all the chil- 
dren of the Church " the lessons of " Scripture and Tradition " ; 
or, in other words, that he had spoken as Universal Teacher : 
he required moreover of the offender (p. 58) a declaration, 
that h.Qfirmhj and solidly holds and professes the doctrine of 
the Encyclical. Lastly you object (p. 18), in somewhat 
singularly chosen language, to a Papal instruction "being 
rammed down your throat with many exhortations to full 
interior assent, by the Christian courtesy of an orthodox Ee- 
viewer." But this is precisely what was done to Lamennais 
by the Catholic Church in France, with the Pope's subsequent 
warmest approval and sanction. 

Your second objection to my argument exhibits a degree of 
carelessness which, on so grave a matter, will certainly surprise 
my readers. You allege (p. 17) that Sixtus V. uttered an 
Allocution, in which he appealed to Peter's indefectible faith ; 
but of which nevertheless Benedict XIV. considers that he 
uttered it as a private doctor. Your error is, of course, quite 
unintentional, but your statement is totally inaccurate in 
the only relevant particular. To begin with a small thing, it 
was not an " Allocution " but a " concio " ; the former word 
being your own most gratuitous introduction. But now for 
the substance of the matter. Sixtus V. directed his " concio " 
to the thesis, that it is heretical to deny a Pope's infallibility 
in canonizing Saints; and he adduced "Peter's indefectible 
faith " as an argument — not at all for his own authority in the 
address he was then delivering, — but exclusively in support of 
the thesis which he was maintaining. As to his own (Sixtus's) 
inherited infallibility inflowing into the 



25 

was then delivering — there is not the remotest hint of any 
such implication. Yon have simply made a very serious mis- 
take, from which the slightest care would have preserved you. 
So far was I moreover from having been ignorant of Bene- 
dict XIV/s dictum, that I expressly drew attention to it last 
October (p. 518). I may add, that if you will read the whole 
of that notice (pp. 515-519) you will see that of all adducible 
writers Benedict XIV. is among the least likely to give you 
any assistance in depreciating the infallible authority of Pon- 
tifical utterances. 

I do not myself then see, how it is more historically clear 
that the definitions of Ephesus or Chalcedon were put forth as 
infallible, than that the " Mirari vos" was so put forth. And 
I am sure you will readily admit, that it is a very fair repre- 
sentative of the class on which our controversy turns. " No 
human being/-' I said in my volume (p. 45), <e will admit the 
doctrinal infallibility of this Encyclical, while he hesitates in 
attributing the same quality to that whole class of Papal 
decrees which it represents." 

I next proceed to the " Quanta cura," with its appended 
Syllabus. In this case I will begin by considering the voice 
of the Episcopate. The Cardinal Yicar of Rome shall take the 
lead ; addressing as he did the Catholics of Pius IX.'s own 
diocese, by his express sanction and under his very eye (see p. 77 
of my volume). He is speaking of the Encyclical and Syllabus, 
and of nothing else whatever. It is " the very word of God," he 
says ; " he who listens not to " the Pope speaking therein, " de- 
clares himself as no longer appertaining to the Church . . . and 
as no longer having a right to the eternal inheritance of 
heaven." The French bishops in like manner vied with each 
other, which should most emphatically express the infallible 
character of this pronouncement. I quote their words from 
p. 86 to p. 91. It is to be u the rule of the belief" of the 
faithful ; to ' ' contradict " it, would be ( ' the sacrifice of eternal 
salvation," because " to Peter alone and his successors it has 
been promised that they should never teach error." We must 
regard it as " infallible in doctrinal matters, unless we would 
renounce our title of Catholics" : it is an "infallible teaching 
which binds every Christian conscience " : it is to be received 
" with the most perfect submission," ff as a symbol, as a 
credo " : it is an " oracle which must be listened to and be- 
lieved " : it is a ' ' Rule of Faith which every Catholic is bound 
to accept " : it contains ' ' the instructions of him whose faith 
cannot fail " : " it is a dogmatic and moral bull ex cathedra, 
emanating from him who has received the full and entire 
mission of teaching the Universal Church " : it is ' ' like the 



26 

Bull Unigenitus," " a Eule of Faith from which no one could 
deviate without ceasing to be a Catholic" 

There is much which astonishes me in your pamphlet ; but 
there is nothing which astonishes me more, than your treatment 
of these most express testimonies. " The fact/' you say (p. 26), 
" that the French bishops speak of their doctrine as the ordinary 
teaching of the Catechism, instead of making for Dr. Ward, 
goes far to show that they and he are not considering the same 
question/' What question in the world then were they con- 
sidering ? You give us no hint of your answer ; and I challenge 
you, in the face of the public, even to suggest any imaginable 
interpretation of their words, except that which they obviously 
bear. It may be worth while to add, that there is but one 
in their number who uses the particular phrase about " the 
ordinary teaching of the Catechism." At the same time I 
know of no reason why all the rest might not have spoken 
similarly ; except that I suppose the Catechism does not abso- 
lutely condemn the Gallican doctrine, which requires Episcopal 
assent in order to constitute infallibility. That the Syllabus, 
so soon as the bishops accepted it, became an infallible Eule 
of Faith, seems to me, as it seemed to the French bishops, in- 
volved in the most elementary principles of Catholicism. 

It is not the French bishops alone, but those of every 
country, who have proclaimed this infallibility. Among our- 
selves the Archbishop and Bishop of Shrewsbury have spoken 
explicitly; the latter in particular (Doct. Dec, p. 92, note) 
laying down that to deny such infallibility is a " false refine- 
ment'''' suggested by "the spirit of insubordination." And 
while multitudes of bishops have spoken thus peremptorily in 
this sense, — there is none, from one end of the Church to the 
other, who has so much as publicly hinted a doubt of the infal- 
libility in question. You ask indeed (p. 26) why I did not 
quote from Mgr. Dupanloup's pamphlet : but the answer is 
very simple. That pamphlet was directed exclusively to 
the question, not of the Syllabus's authority, but of its mean- 
ing ; whereas my quotations referred exclusively to the former, 
and not at all to the latter. But the Bishop of Orleans by im- 
plication threw his whole weight into the same scale with his 
brethren. For consider the occasion which led him to write. 
A most exaggerated impression existed in France, and was 
sedulously promoted by the infidel party, on the effect produced 
be the Syllabus of placing Catholics in violent opposition to 
modern law and usage ; and the Bishop wrote for the precise 
purpose of removing this impression. Now in no other way 
could he half so effectively have removed it, as by avowing 
your opinion, that the Syllabus did not claim to be received as 



27 

an infallible utterance. ]STo bishop however would be found 
avowing such a tenet as yours ; and at all events it is most 
certain, that Mgr. Dupanloup did nothing of the kind. On 
the contrary, by the very careful explanation which he gave as 
to the strict bearing of each censure in the Syllabus, he most 
undoubtedly implied that in that strict bearing each censure 
was infallibly just. 

You think (p. 54) " that there are very considerable grounds 
for supposing that the Syllabus is nothing more than an index" 
to Pius IX. 's briefs, and has in itself no infallible authority. 
Now a very large number of bishops, from the Cardinal Vicar 
of Rome downwards, have officially and most emphatically 
pronounced it infallible; and moreover — the former being a 
manifest and overt fact- — no one bishop has so much as publicly 
hinted any different view. If therefore this deplorable notion 
of yours could be maintained, it would follow that the Ecclesia 
Docens — our divinely appointed guide to Catholic Truth — has 
been banded in one vast conspiracy for the corruption of that 
Truth. 

Now pass, from the circumstances of its reception, to the 
pronouncement itself. You admit that those doctrinal instruc- 
tions are infallibly true, which are issued by the Pope in his 
capacity of Universal Teacher. What possible doubt can there 
be that the " Quanta eura" and Syllabus were thus issued ? 
In the ce Quanta cura " the Pope ' ' wills and commands n that 
the errors censured therein "be thoroughly held by allcMldrm 
of the Catholic Church as reprobated, proscribed, and con- 
demned." In the Syllabus he teaches that " all Catholics 
ought most firmly to hold " that doctrine which he had delivered 
on his civil princedom. In what imaginable capacity can he 
speak in such declarations as these, except in that of Univer- 
sal Teacher? (Doc. Dec, p. 74.) 

The " Quanta cura" then is undoubtedly ex cathedra. What 
does Pius IX. teach therein concerning his own infallible au- 
thority ? He teaches (Doct. Dec, p. 72) that the Pope is in 
the habit of putting forth certain judgments, which do not 
[directly] touch the dogmata of faith and morals ; that in- 
terior assent cannot be refused to these judgments without 
sin,* and without a certain sacrifice of the Catholic profession ; 
and that this obligation of interior assent rests on the Pope's 
infallibility therein. I have argued, from p. 71 to p. 73, that no 
other interpretation is possible of the Pontifical words; and 
you have attempted no reply whatever to my argument. The 



* I think it will be pretty universally admitted by competent persons that 
the word " sin " here signifies " mortal sin. " 



n 



28 

Pope declares, not only that he has this infallibility, but that 
those who will not ascribe it to him are guilty of <c audacity/' 
and of refusing to " endure sound doctrine/'' And all this has 
been accepted by the Catholic Episcopate. I must entreat 
you with all possible earnestness to consider, whether you will 
continue to hold opinions thus characterized by the Church. 

I now make a further assertion, which you consider " wild " 
(p. 55), but which to me appears on the contrary rather obvious. 
Eead Card. Antonelli's circular letter (Doc. Dec, p. 79) on 
occasion of the Syllabus. The Syllabus was sent round to all 
the bishops, in order that they might duly know what errors 
had already been " reprobated and condemned. "It did not pro- 
fess then to invest those various condemnations with an in- 
fallible authority which they had not before possessed, but the 
reverse. If the Syllabus therefore was infallible — and we 
have seen how indubitable is the fact — it follows that the ear- 
lier condemnations had been infallible also ; and consequently, 
that the various Papal utterances which contained them had 
been issued ex cathedra. If you will express your reasons for 
differing on this head, I will carefully consider them ; but no 
one can reply to the mere epithet i ' wild." 

Here then I close what I had to say on the Encyclical and 
Syllabus. 

I now come to a most singular statement of yours. The 
chief object of my volume was to claim infallibility, not indeed 
for mere " obiter dicta," but for every doctrinal decision con- 
tained in Encyclicals and in certain other Papal pronouncements 
to which I therein refer; while the main object of your 
pamphlet is to deny that infallibility. I assume therefore 
that the word " Encyclical," in the following passage, includes 
the whole class of utterances on which our controversy turns. 
This being understood, how wonderful is the following sen- 
tence ! — " The propositions of Encyclicals," you say, " do not 
enunciate any new truth, or even any logical development of 
an old truth ; but they are fresh enunciations of an old truth, 
with a special significance in the case of a new emergency " 
(p. 18). Now consider for a moment the various instructions, 
which have been published under this form only within the 
last fifty years. That whole doctrine on the Pope's temporal 
sovereignty has thus been taught, which he requires "all 
Catholics to hold most firmly."* The true doctrine concerning 

* See what authority the University of Cagliari ascribes as a matter of 
course to these Allocutions and Encyclicals : — " The Sovereign Pontiff has 
more than once expressly declared that, in the present condition of society, 
the temporal power of the Holy See is both most useful and even necessary, 
&c. &c. This pontifical declaration has been accepted with unparalleled 



29 

so-called "religious liberty" and liberty of the press. The 
State's true office in matters which concern religion. The 
Church's temporal power, whether direct or indirect. (Syllabus, 
prop. 24.) The true doctrine on exclusive salvation and invin- 
cible ignorance. The precise relations between theological and 
secular science — between the claims of Reason and Revelation. 
The obligation of obedience to civil rulers. And all this over 
and above the vast mass of philosophical truth, taught by 
the condemnation of Hermes, of Giinther, of traditionalistic 
error, and the like. I am quite unable to conjecture with what 
your thoughts can have been occupied, when you wrote and 
corrected for press that truly bewildering sentence which I 
began with quoting. 

Further, in regard to all these momentous decisions, you 
affirm (p. 19) that "there is no proof they are intended to 
do more, than throw the weight of the Holy See for the 
time into the opposite scale." No proof? Are the Holy 
Father's repeated and most emphatic words to be accounted 
by a Catholic no proof of what he means ? When did he ever 
say one word about throwing his weight for the time into one 
particular scale ? On the contrary, does he not always speak with 
the most energetic and unsparing severity of the errors which 
he denounces ? What possible right has any Catholic to 
take for granted, that the Pope does not mean what he 
most emphatically says, but that he does mean something else 
of which he gives not the slightest hint ? From your pamphlet 
it would appear that any other key to the Pope's intention 
seems to you more appropriate, than the obvious one of sup- 
posing him to mean just what he says. I know that the best 
men are often very inconsistent ; and nothing can be further 
from my wish than any kind, of personal disrespect. But I 
really find it far more easy, as a matter of argumentative con- 
sistency, to understand a Protestant's position than yours. 
A Protestant rejects the Pope's authority altogether : while 
you speculatively accept him indeed as " the teacher of 
Christians," but then turn aside his teaching from its one 
obvious drift, in accordance with private unauthorized concep- 
tions. And after this have you still the nerve to accuse me 
of " idealism " ; of building up a theory, not on facts, but on 
a priori prepossessions ? 

Then you speak of his not imposing on you " the burden 

unanimity by the whole Catholic Episcopate, from which the spirit of truth 
never departs" — Quoted by F. Herbert Vaughan, in his pamphlet on the 
French Episcopate, Preface, p. vii. 



30 

of absolute interior assent" (p. 17). How can docility to an 
infallible voice be a burden ? How can it be otherwise,, on the 
contrary, than a real accession to our intellectual liberty, if a 
large body of important truth is infallibly pronounced ?* 

On the case of Galileo I shall not enter here. According to 
your own view of the facts, that case does not present even 
a prima facie difficulty in my way ; for you consider (p. 56) 
that there was u no doctrinal pronouncement whatever n in 
any sense "sanctioned by the Pope against Copernicanism.'' , 
And there are obvious reasons for adjourning the question ; 
for in the July number of the Revue des Questions Historiques, 
there is to be a special investigation of the whole subject by 
M. de PEpinois. In October then, or at latest in January, 
it shall be treated again in the Dublin Review. 

In conclusion you remark (pp. 62-3), on the evil of mixing 
up what is certain with what is merely probable. Such remarks 
can have no bearing on my own conduct; for my conten- 
tion has been throughout, that the doctrine on infallibility 
which I advocate is in substance absolutely certain. In fact, 
this is precisely the point at issue. I maintain, and you 
deny, that the Church teaches this doctrine as vital and 
essential. If the Church do not teach it as vital and essen- 
tial, I agree with you most fully that I have been a cruel 
and mischievous disturber of Christian peace. On the other 
hand, if she do teach it as vital and essential, then you hold 
as strongly as I do, that we should act faithlessly and treacher- 
ously if we sacrificed it in the interests of a spurious liberality. 
Our business, as you most usefully point out, is not to place 
before Protestants an "ideal - ''' Catholicism, but that full and 
definite Catholicism which the Church in fact teaches. Cer- 
tainly on grounds of reason alone, I recognize deep and 
superhuman wisdom in what I hold to be the Church's large 
claim of infallibility \ and I consider your own contradictory 
view to be shallow and unphilosophical. But never have I 
rested my case prominently on such arguments ; nor have I 
indeed relied on them at all, except in strictest subordination 
to the paramount inquiry, what is in fact the Church's 
teaching. "In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in om- 
nibus caritas " — this is the golden rule which I have ever 
attempted to follow : only in order to put it into practice, we 



* I would beg my readers' attention to some remarks on intellectual 
liberty, which I made in January 1867, pp. 92-3. 



31 

must examine the Church's testimony, as to what things are 
" necessaria" and what " dubia.'" 

From my point of view then, I have a right to complain 
of your implying (p. 14) that I wish to erect into substantial 
barriers c ' the little party walls of private opinion ; " for I 
have consistently denied from the first that the issue between 
us is a matter of private opinion at all. And I have a still 
greater right to complain of another implication in the same 
passage. You, it appears, perform the noble office of ce re- 
sisting the enemy without;" to me appertains the ignominious 
alternative of " flattering the authorities within." Are you then 
unable to apprehend a loyal and reverential devotion to the 
Holy Father, which shall be anything else than flattery and 
servility ? 

And now to conclude. I am not conscious of having 
had any other aim on the whole doctrine at issue, except 
simply to discover and follow the Church's teaching thereon. 
On hearing of your pamphlet, I expected to find some able 
arguments against that opinion ; and any such arguments I 
resolved most carefully to examine. In this I have been 
altogether disappointed; and the very fact of your being 
unable even to attempt a case against me, cannot tend 
to lessen the strength of my convictions. At last how- 
ever the ultimate judge is Holy Church. As might have 
been confidently expected from a loyal priest, you " sub- 
mit what you have said without reserve to her authority ;" 
and for myself also it is my highest ambition to be taught 
by her voice. That I may have made various incidental 
and minor mistakes in treating so large a question, I take 
for granted ; though of course, if I knew definitely what these 
mistakes are, I should have already corrected them. But 
should authority decide that my doctrine of infallibility is 
substantially mistaken — nay, or that the Church does not 
teach that general doctrine as vital and essential — I should 
publicly put forth an ample retractation, accompanied with 
expressions of sincere st regret for the mischief I might have 
done. 

I remain, Eev. dear Sir, 

Faithfully yours, 

W. G. WARD. 

London, May 13, 1867. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



I II II 



011 859 243 



llll I i A 
8 W 



